Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Past Issues
    • Supplements
    • Article Type
  • Specialty
    • Articles by Specialty
  • CME/MOC
    • Articles
    • Calendar
  • Info For
    • Manuscript Submission
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Subscriptions
    • About CCJM
    • Contact Us
    • Media Kit
  • Conversations with Leaders
  • Conference Coverage
    • Kidney Week 2024
    • CHEST 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • Kidney Week 2023
    • ObesityWeek 2023
    • IDWeek 2023
    • CHEST 2023
    • MDS 2023
    • IAS 2023
    • ACP 2023
    • AAN 2023
    • ACC / WCC 2023
    • AAAAI Meeting 2023
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • Kidney Week 2022
    • AIDS 2022
  • Other Publications
    • www.clevelandclinic.org

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • www.clevelandclinic.org
  • Register
  • Log in
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Past Issues
    • Supplements
    • Article Type
  • Specialty
    • Articles by Specialty
  • CME/MOC
    • Articles
    • Calendar
  • Info For
    • Manuscript Submission
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Subscriptions
    • About CCJM
    • Contact Us
    • Media Kit
  • Conversations with Leaders
  • Conference Coverage
    • Kidney Week 2024
    • CHEST 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • Kidney Week 2023
    • ObesityWeek 2023
    • IDWeek 2023
    • CHEST 2023
    • MDS 2023
    • IAS 2023
    • ACP 2023
    • AAN 2023
    • ACC / WCC 2023
    • AAAAI Meeting 2023
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • Kidney Week 2022
    • AIDS 2022
Article

Screening for urologic malignancies in primary care: Pros, cons, and recommendations

Matt T. Rosenberg, MD, Milton M. Lakin, MD, David R. Staskin, MD, Andrew J. Stephenson, MD, Louis Kuritzky, MD and Steven C. Campbell, MD, PhD
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine May 2007, 74 (5 suppl 3) S6-S14;
Matt T. Rosenberg
Mid-Michigan Health Centers
Roles: Co-Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Milton M. Lakin
Cleveland Clinic
Roles: Co-Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David R. Staskin
New York Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Medical College of Cornell University
Roles: Associate Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew J. Stephenson
Section of Urologic Oncology, Glickman Urological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Louis Kuritzky
Department of Community Health and Family Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Steven C. Campbell
Section of Urologic Oncology, Glickman Urological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: [email protected]
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Interest in screening for urologic cancers has grown in recent years. This article considers the pros and cons of screening for four epidemiologically compelling urologic cancers: prostate, bladder, kidney, and testicular. Unfortunately, many of the urologic cancers do not meet the criteria for a successful cancer screening programnamely, high prevalence, availability of a sensitive and specific screening test, ability to detect clinically important cancers at an early stage, and cost-effectiveness. While age-based screening for prostate cancer should be offered to the general population after discussion of its benefits and risks, for the other three urologic malignancies the current consensus points more toward selective screening based on specific patient risk factors.

Footnotes

  • ↵* Milton M. Lakin, MD, has received consulting fees and honoraria from Pfizer and Eli Lilly/ICOS for consulting, teaching/speaking, and advisory board membership. He also reported having stock ownership interest in Pfizer and Eli Lilly.

  • ↵** David R. Staskin, MD, has received honoraria from ESPRIT Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Ortho-McNeil, Watson Pharmaceuticals, and Astellas Pharma for teaching/speaking.

  • ↵* Drs. Stephenson and Campbell reported that they have no financial relationships that pose a potential conflict of interest with this article. Dr. Kuritzky reported that he has received honoraria from Pfizer, Eli Lilly, ICOS, Bayer, and GlaxoSmithKline for teaching/speaking.

  • Copyright © 2007 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine: 74 (5 suppl 3)
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
Vol. 74, Issue 5 suppl 3
1 May 2007
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Screening for urologic malignancies in primary care: Pros, cons, and recommendations
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
Please verify that you are a real person.
Citation Tools
Screening for urologic malignancies in primary care: Pros, cons, and recommendations
Matt T. Rosenberg, Milton M. Lakin, David R. Staskin, Andrew J. Stephenson, Louis Kuritzky, Steven C. Campbell
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine May 2007, 74 (5 suppl 3) S6-S14;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Screening for urologic malignancies in primary care: Pros, cons, and recommendations
Matt T. Rosenberg, Milton M. Lakin, David R. Staskin, Andrew J. Stephenson, Louis Kuritzky, Steven C. Campbell
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine May 2007, 74 (5 suppl 3) S6-S14;
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • New treatments for peripheral artery disease
  • Functional tricuspid regurgitation: Feasibility of transcatheter interventions
  • A practical approach to the cholesterol guidelines and ASCVD prevention
Show more Article

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Supplements
  • Article Type
  • Specialty
  • CME/MOC Articles
  • CME/MOC Calendar
  • Media Kit

Authors & Reviewers

  • Manuscript Submission
  • Authors & Reviewers
  • Subscriptions
  • About CCJM
  • Contact Us
  • Cleveland Clinic Center for Continuing Education
  • Consult QD

Share your suggestions!

Copyright © 2025 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All rights reserved. The information provided is for educational purposes only. Use of this website is subject to the website terms of use and privacy policy. 

Powered by HighWire